25-1225. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order
A. A tribunal of this state that has issued a support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and either:
1. At the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.
2. If this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.
B. A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of this state shall not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if either:
1. All of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
2. Its order is not the controlling order.
C. If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the uniform interstate family support act or a law substantially similar to that act and that modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.
D. A tribunal of this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.
E. A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.
Notes of Decisions
Marriage of McHale v. McHale, 109 P.3d 89 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “§ 25-626 (A.R.S. § 25-1225) is almost identical to the 2001 version of UIFSA § 205.”
Dept. of Econ. SEC. v. Tazioli, 246 P.3d 944 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 22× “¶ 8 In relevant part, A.R.S. § 25-1225 provides: A. A tribunal of this state that has issued a support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order…”
Balazic v. Balazic, 334 P.3d 771 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “; AR.S. § 25-1225; see also A.R.S. § 25-1311(E) (stating that Arizona assumes continuing, exclusive jurisdiction when Arizona court issues a modified order).”
Kennedy v. Wybenga (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “§ 25-1227(B), and (2) Father lived in Arizona when he petitioned to modify child support and determine arrearages under A.R.S. § 25-1225(A)(1). ¶12 UIFSA’s one-order system supports this result.”
Danko v. Danko (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 25-1225(A)(1). The superior court does not retain jurisdiction to modify an order if the parties and the child are no longer residents of Arizona.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1225(A) — 1 case
Dept. of Econ. SEC. v. Tazioli, 246 P.3d 944 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 8 In relevant part, A.R.S. § 25-1225 provides: A. A tribunal of this state that has issued a support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1225(A)(1) — 2 cases
Danko v. Danko (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“" A.R.S. § 25-1225(A)(1). The superior court does not retain jurisdiction to modify an order if the parties and the child are no longer residents of Arizona.”
Kennedy v. Wybenga (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 25-1227(B), and (2) Father lived in Arizona when he petitioned to modify child support and determine arrearages under A.R.S. § 25-1225(A)(1). ¶12 UIFSA’s one-order system supports this result.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1225(A)(2) — 1 case
Dept. of Econ. SEC. v. Tazioli, 246 P.3d 944 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 8 In relevant part, A.R.S. § 25-1225 provides: A. A tribunal of this state that has issued a support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1225(B)(1) — 1 case
Dept. of Econ. SEC. v. Tazioli, 246 P.3d 944 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 8 In relevant part, A.R.S. § 25-1225 provides: A. A tribunal of this state that has issued a support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1225(C) — 1 case
Kennedy v. Wybenga (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 25-1227(B), and (2) Father lived in Arizona when he petitioned to modify child support and determine arrearages under A.R.S. § 25-1225(A)(1). ¶12 UIFSA’s one-order system supports this result.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.